sketch_offset

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the description is not carrying the safety burden alone. It adds the meaningful side-selection semantics of reverse and both_sides, but omits whether the original entities are retained and whether all entities through the point are offset or only the connected chain.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core operation stated first and the flag semantics following. Nothing to trim.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the low schema coverage is largely offset by the description's flag explanations. The remaining gap is context requirements (active sketch / selected document) for a mutation of this kind.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 20% (just distance_mm), so the description must compensate — and it does: it explains that (x, y) is the point selecting the entity chain, and defines reverse and both_sides behavior. Only the mm units/mutual exclusivity of the two flags is left implicit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (offsets) and a precisely scoped resource: the chain of connected sketch entities passing through a given point. That scope detail distinguishes it from other sketch-editing siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the modifier flags but gives no guidance on when to use this versus other sketch tools, nor any prerequisite such as requiring an active sketch (start_sketch/end_sketch are siblings). The agent must infer invocation context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.